They would if there was no evidence the people who supposedly robbed him did so besides his testimony.

One reason why rape is such a complicated crime to deal with legally is because there is usually very little evidence aside from testimony. The analogy of comparing rape to virtually any other crime falls apart because more physical evidence is expected in any other type of crime.

Except most people don’t just straight up give their car to people without paperwork. People have sex without contracts all the time. Even in the event it’s proven that the victim and accused rapist had sex, there isn’t expected to be a paper trail indicating consent, so when there isn’t one it’s not suspicious.

Also you can’t make someone un-have sex with someone. If a car is suspected of being stolen and found with somebody else, they can just give the car back if they prove it’s the same car and they were the owner.

If someone claims I stole 50 dollars from them and the only evidence they have is that I have money in pocket, does that prove anything? Someone can't just say I stole money and use money in my pocket as proof, they still have to prove I stole it.

I was about to say money is a terrible example because it only furthers the point. If you can't prove your side it IS he said she said. If you see 50 dollars in my wallet and claim it's yours and you have no evidence to prove it's yours, then you everyone will think your full of shit.

What I don't think people get is that we WANT to help rape victims, we don't want rapists walking around, I sure as hell don't have any investment with some random jackoff who might lose his college scholarship because he rapes someone, as far as I'm concerned that guy can go fuck himself because he is a dirty piece of trash.

But here is the problem, if you can't prove it then no conviction can come about, innocent until proven guilty is a core pillar of the legal system. If anyone can make a baseless accusation towards someone they dislike and get them jailed for it we might as well start having witch trials again.

That is the problem with rape, it is something that is hard to prove without witnesses or physical injury, and it becomes a testimony of listening to both sides of the story and choosing based on little fact who you support.

This becomes even messier the longer someone waits to report a rapist.

Yep. The fact of the matter is that our justice system favors the defendant. You have to prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Just because the crime is horrible doesn't mean we should change our standards. It's unfortunate in circumstances like rape where the women overwhelmingly are telling the truth but it's the way our justice system is designed.

That does not need to be exclusive with treating women who make claims with respect and helping them the best we can.

More so that the defense can easily secure a not guilty plea by showing that you normally did gift such rings, even if they aren't able to prove you gifted it in this particular case. It isn't about proving the accused is innocent, it is about creating enough doubt that you can't say for certain they are guilty.

They pretty much can if it is a small enough amount to be what someone would normally donate. Say someone claimed they had $20 stolen from them but then the other side claimed they were given the $20 when they mentioned they needed money for food. On the off chance it does go to court, if the defense can show the alleged victim normally donates $20 to people in need, it will be brought up to cast doubt on the story that the $20 was stolen.

Now, if it is $2000 or some amount, it is far more likely to go to trial and the accused is far more likely to be convicted. But if the defense can show the alleged victim normally donated $2000 to people who randomly asked, that alone would be enough to secure the accused a not guilty plea. Especially since a not guilty plea doesn't mean they are innocent, it just means there is enough doubt you aren't going to strip them of their freedom and put them in prison.

If I have a vehicle title, by law I am the legal owner of said vehicle. I can show/call the police and they can find you in possession of the car. I can then say I never gave it to you. Or you had no right. Since I'm the legal owner and you are found to be driving my car they police could arrest and prosecution would be a lot easier.

While it's obvious every person is entitled to 'own' their body it still makes proving issues of consent and rape really difficult.

This analogy never works because it operates under two different situations.

Instead of "the alleged perpetrator was found to be in physical possession of property not belonging to them and the owner is wanting to press charges." It's "This person says this thing happened but there's no evidence, no witnesses, and both are telling different stories."

No dude we're saying they have this attitude even when theres DNA evidence of "sex" ie consensual taking of the car. so the issue is just whether the person who reported to the police is lying about whether they lent someone a car or not.

the fact that they have a title to it is irrelevant: the other person isn't committing a crime if they lent the car willingly. the point is we assume that someone wouldnt lend someone else a car and then randomly go to the police saying that person "stole" it. Because that would be nuts.

On top of that there are people who do actually maintain that it is "he said- she said" when in addition to DNA there are injuries. Which is more akin to the car having been hot wired and then someone claiming it was lent to them. Or rather their lawyer claiming it and them not testifying either way. this is what we are criticising: it's a completely irrational maintenance of belief of innocence simply because the rape being real is sooooooooo unlikely

Yeah, they are. If I have legal possession of something and I claim you stole it it's up to you to prove you didn't. It's not up to me to prove I didn't give it to you.

Please stop calling people dude. I'm not a dude. And I only really witness it much on this forum when other commentors are trying to not so snidely insult the person they respond to.

This argument makes no sense. No, they are NOT committing a crime by lending a friend a car. But if (and here is dangerous territory as I'm not drawing parallels between rape and loaning cars) the owner were to call the cops and report a vehicle stolen the lendee would be on the hook to prove it wasn't true.

In this scenario: lender, rape victim and lendee rapist

I sure as hell have MUCH stronger grounds to file complaints if a lendee is found in possession of my personal property with no proof I gave it to them.

The problem is we don't have that with sex laws. I want that attitude to change. I don't want everyone to need to consent before every single thing. But I want allegations to be taken more seriously.

So the idea that wearing "sexy" underwear does not prove consent makes sense

But the opposite argument would be, just because a women says something, doesn't make it true.

Rape is always a shitty trial because on one side we need evidence to convict but the fact is besides video evidence or a rape kit, the assumed victim is screwed. Unless we believe all women, then all men can be freely accused. The article didn't go into much more detail than "Shortly after underwear was presented, the verdict was passed". There's a ton of information I'd like to know that isn't present in this article. How, when, did they know each other, their history, what other evidence was presented, etc.

I'm not about to get outraged over a tiny article. I'd have to read further on it. Also, the article doesn't explicitly stated the the underwear was the decided reason for the verdict

Nope. The defendants lawyer mentioned the underwear in her closing statement. That is very different from someone getting away with rape because of a thong, making false equivalences is really not helpful. We have no idea why the jury made the decision they did. There would have been women on that jury, you really think they were swayed by mention of a thong?

can pretty much confirm that. My house got robbed a seven years ago, and well... I doubt the cops investigated and that I'll get anything besides the copy of the police report for insurance claims from back then

They might do, but in a lot of cases, if the insurers don't think you have taken sufficient care to protect your belongings from theft, they won't pay out for it. They are effectively saying it was your fault so you have to take responsibility.

Police likely wouldn't care enough to investigate unless they thought it was part of a bigger problem or if you were someone important enough to convince the police they should care.

My parents have been robbed multiple times and the police did nothing except file paper work. While they do have far more advanced tools for hunting down a criminal, they aren't going to pull those out for theft or even breaking and entering and burglary.

that would never fly if there is evidence and an accusation though. Almost every single person in modern society would never believe that to be the case based on how people behave with property.

people are much more willing to believe that a woman would outright lie about being raped or decide after the fact that an act of consensual sex was actually not consensual or use the accusation of rape vindictively. im not defending any of the former points, i am just saying that people believe sex is a much murkier subject than the transfer of property.

The problem is a defense lawyer would absolutely use that as a defense if, you know, poor criminals had access to good defense lawyers -- and good here isn't a moral judgement, it's an ability to make a valid argument in the eyes of the court.

As enlightened as we claim to be, character assassination still works. You see it everywhere.

But it really depends. If you walk around with $100 hanging out of your pocket and go down "pickpocket alley", can we really say that you're blameless for what happened?

Rape is different, and I don't think that what you wear should dictate the guilt of the rapist, but the cases of bad decisions should be recognized. If a victim wasn't wearing much on a beach and was nabbed by a member of hotel staff on the way back to change, the victim isn't to blame.

However, if you go into a club notorious for sexual harassment instances by staff and wind up getting groped, the harasser should still be punished, but it was awful stupid to willingly put yourself in that situation.

That's a slightly different situation though. The reason her underwear was brought up as evidence was because the girl claimed her attacker "ripped off" her underwear. However in court they found that the underwear was not ripped, which cast doubt on her version of events.

The accused was not convicted in the end due to lack of evidence. It was nothing to do with what type of underwear the girl was wearing.

“Does the evidence out-rule the possibility that she was attracted to the defendant and was open to meeting someone and being with someone? You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front.”

The ‘sexiness’ of the 17-years-old girl’s thong was used in a court of law as part of the guy’s defense. It’s deplorable.

Are you suggesting that we should limit the defence’s ability to present its case? Where does this stop? More prosecutors would then say that this limitation should be limited to other crimes as well.

The problem isn’t that the defence raised this issue. It’s that the public believed it. You have to change public culture not the defence’s ability to present a case. As a defence attorney I should be able to put forth whatever I want. No matter how absurd it was.

For example, I’ve seen an attorney put forth a defence that suggested that a victim died not from the 6 gunshot wounds he received but rather that he choked on his vomit which occurred after he was shot. Of course the jury didn’t buy this argument.

But you’re going down a dangerous road to suggest that courts should be able to limit a line of argument

I’m not defending the line of reasoning, but definitely defending the ability to use any line of reasoning to defend oneself. This isn’t an issue with the justice system. If you want this one to not work in the future, you have to change the jury’s(ie. the people) viewpoints.

How can underwear be modest or immodest if no one sees it? Many of us wear thongs because they're comfortable and practical. I certainly wore them before I became sexually active. And most women's underwear is lacy or decorated in some way. Go browse the ladies section of Target.

First of all the person wearing it would see it but also an object can be perceived as immodest or sexual without necessarily being seen. I'm sure people who care about behaving modestly such as many devout christians and muslims would also chose a more covering choice of underwear.

And "a thong with a lace front" is seen by the majority of people as a more sexual choice of underwear than a more covering alternative no matter of how you perceive it.

If a prosecution had made their case against the defendant based on that the victim was a prude and had no interest in no sexual activity whatsoever, then looking on what clothes the victim wore can be a valid way to judge the likelihood of the victim's story checking out.

Otherwise you would be correct, that is why I was interested in the particulars of this case but even though many have drawn conclusions about it no one seems to have any information regarding it.

I follow news and never see them unironically saying "look what this girl is wearing, she was asking for it" or anything of the sort. I do see them reporting on people who express that sentiment but that doesn't really tell you how widespread of an issue it is

To be fair, I've never seen a newscaster or reporter say that. But often, buried in the longer journalism reports/in depth stories, that question is in there somewhere.

Sometimes it's the police asking the victim. Reports of rape have been refused because a cop shamed the woman enough so she didn't report it. Sometimes it's the perpetrator's defense asking the victim (ex: that rich Stanford?? guy who raped an unconscious woman behind a dumpster was asked what she was wearing/did she orgasm/how much did she drink/etc. This was used in evidence against her.). And so on.

And many, many raped/sexually harassed women are asked by jerks "Well, what were you wearing?" followed by "You were asking for it."

I remember a case a number of years ago where a stranger entered a woman's home and assaulted her; she talked him into wearing a condom so she wouldn't get pregnant (or infected), and dude was acquitted because the judge took her self-preservation move as evidence of consent.

I'm not sure about this specific case but as a defendant you have the right to a jury of your peers. You can however waive this right and ask for a trial by a judge. I had an old law professor that always said, "If you're innocent, waive this right and ask for a trial by judge. If you're guilty, ask for a trial by jury. You don't want people's emotions determining your fate if you're innocent and a rational judge would be able to see this but if you need to fool someone into thinking that you're innocent, your odds are way better with a jury."

Depends if you opt for a bench trial. People who are technically in the right but morally not so clear do opt for bench trials because judges are more likely to rule on the technicalities of how the law is written while a jury who is unsure may let the morality of the situation sway their vote (even if in theory they shouldn't).

Of course. But if you took a guy into the bar bathroom and then came out saying that he raped you, no jury would convict. Which doesn't mean that you weren't a victim, just that the evidence wasn't in your favor. In the absence of evidence regarding consent given, context alluding to intent (dress, behavior) is all we have to work with.

Ultimately as a crime it will always be one persons word against another. My example was the extreme. I should have the freedom to live as I please however I accept reality.

Personally my rapist was a former FWB and I was wearing my work uniform. The girls underwear from above shouldn't even be considered. No one can see it. You have no idea whether I am going commando or wearing granny panties and you'll never know.

What bothers me is the victim blaming.

I yelled no. I screamed I cried I begged. I didn't report because he was an old relationship. No one would believe I just went to see him to catch up with someone I once considered a friend. No one would believe me over the preachers kid/sports ball hero/ivy league boy.

Does wearing sexually attractive clothing make you a bigger target for sexual attention and sexual assault. The answer is unequivocally yes, and the art project you link does little to contradict what is obvious to anyone who's gone out looking sexy. There are other factors that are common among victims, but this is one of them.

Is the alleged victim's sexual behavior (habits, clothing, etc) relevant to the question of rape in a court of law? Perhaps, in the absence of more reliable evidence. The question, for a jury, of whether or not consent was likely given is both one regarding the plaintiff's interest in sexual activity, and of their interest in a specific sort of activity with a specific partner. To what degree they are able, the jury has a responsibility to best understand the intent of the plaintiff in such a case as the crime hinges largely on that intent.

To wit, looking sexy isn't an invitation to rape, nor is it true that all rape victims look a particular way (sexy or otherwise), but the matter of a victim's appearance and behavior is relevant to the court and to the cause of really prevention.

The equivalent argument is not "he was wearing ______ , so he was looking to rape people", the equivalent is "he was wearing _______, so he was looking to have sex". Of course it's hard to draw fair parallels, because men aren't so much known to "dress up" to attract a sexual partner -- but there are other clues. For instance, "he brought condoms with him, so he was looking to have sex" (see: here)

But these ideas are relevant to my second point, not the first. I'm not sure how you could look at the entirety of fashion and cosmetics and deny that some outfits or looks make a person more sexually attractive. And a more sexually attractive person is going to be more attractive also to those would would be willing to act violently on that attraction.

It is equivalent. When people blame women for what they were wearing, they are saying they invited RAPE, not sexual approaches. They are claiming that men are incapable of higher brain functions around hot women. Ergo, saying, after the fact, that sweat were worn for raping is equivalent. The whole after the fact part is the important thing that makes it go from "advice" to victim blaming.

But these ideas are relevant to my second point, not the first.

It's curious how you claim such an insight into a rapists mind. Since we are pulling shit out of our asses, let me join you: Rape, first and foremost, requires opportunity. Opportunity requires power. For example, the power of her being financially dependent on you. Or the power that she is a child. Or the power that she knows and trusts you. Or the power of being a rich white man being judged by other rich white men like Brock "Convicted Rapist" Turner.

Look at rape stats. See that most of it happens with people women know. Realize that power is far more relevant than sexiness. Realize that you are hurting women everywhere by arguing for such a non-factor.

Rape has existed in medieval times, where women were covered from head to toe. Rape happens to muslimas, wearing literally just a black, featureless sack over their entire body. Rape has nothing to do with fashion, and everything to do with rapists.

It's not even that. The evidence can be in your favor, but still not be strong enough to justify stripping someone of their freedom and sending them to prison. That's why people can be found not guilty but still lose in a civil case, as the latter is a question of whose favor is the evidence in while the former is a question of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If a reasonable person has even a doubt that someone consented, it is enough for them to be not guilty of rape. Not innocent, but not guilty.

The reason for this is that in general, a person is helpless against the state.

If you let a criminal go free because of doubt, maybe they will never do it again. Maybe they will try and get shot. Maybe they will try and the next time they will be caught with enough evidence to convict. But if you jail an innocent person because of doubt about their innocence, then it is guaranteed that an innocent person will be kidnapped and enslaved for years to decades. It comes down to a question of what is worse, letting a potentially criminal get away once or enslaving an innocent person for years.

The fact that you should be able to doesn't mean that it wouldn't still be unbelievably stupid to do so. In an ideal world you should be able to do that with no negative consequences, but we don't live in an ideal world, and decisions should be made and actions taken while taking in to consideration that some people are terrible human beings, and that what is right, fair, or just is completely irrelevant a lot of the time.

Rapists are horrible, and the crime they commit is horrible and multivariable.

—

There are definitely links between rape and dehumanization or objectified views of women. And then further links between attire and views on women.

Objectification Theory(Fredrickson, Roberts 1997) shows that the margin of acceptability for women in attire is less than that of men. And that certain indicators can lead to this objectification of women.

Kennedy is 1993 showed that sexually provocative clothing(defined in his study as one in which the clothing deviates from the norm in a way that alludes to a sexually charged context) affected this margin of acceptability, later normalized under a unified theory in 1997.

Bartky 1990, Femininity and Domination, showed that underwear and even swimsuits could be linked to perceptions of women as sexual objects for use. A mere body for use of pleasure. This was further added to in 2011 by Vaes et all, that sexualized women were seen as less competent and less human.

Heflick et All and Gervais et All in 2011-2012 showed that these beliefs were not fundamentally men, but rather widespread in both men and women at a basic cognitive level. Further, it asserted that the view of women as sex objects was psychology apparent in women as equally often as men.

Later Gervais also showed in 2013 that when women sexualize their appearance, this objectification from men was significantly more pronounced, and that women were adversely more likely to be physically affected by the objectification than men were.

—

All of that to say, this issues is a systemic cultural issue built into our minds. We have evolved under a certain hierarchy for a long time, and so our minds are attuned to that hierarchy. If we want to change that, we have to understand the fundamental issues involved.

Here is a more comprehensive study on most of the information available on for attire and sexual assault:

And in this thread men are defending it. Because why would a woman choose to wear a thong (for many women a common and comfortable, not to mention practical, style of underwear) if she didn't want to please them?

Hmm. I mean I couldn't imagine finding a thong comfortable. Doesn't the string at the back ride up or anything? I mean I get that riding up feeling with underwear that puts the seam at the back there. Unsure if the fact I have annoying dangly bits at the front has an effect on this.

It's very much a personal preference. Like how do some guys like briefs and some like boxers? One is totally tight on your junk and the other let's stuff sorta just hang. A well fitting thong can be way more comfortable than slightly too large boyshorts that bunches up in your butt crack.

I also have this question as a woman. I haven't ever worn a thong that doesn't need to be picked out of my crack at some point throughout the day--Am I sizing them wrong? I gave up on them because I thought they just weren't for me.

Depends what material you get too. Some are lacey, some are that kind of nylon material that doesn't really hold shape well. Cotton ones are pretty awesome, same material as regular knickers and they don't tend to move around either. Don't often need to rearrange myself if I'm wearing the cotton/polyester ones, unless I inadvertently cleave the moon when I'm done in the bathroom and rush out before realising how uncomfortable I am!

For me, a thong is more comfortable than boy shorts because boy short underwear have ridiculously narrow crotches. A good thong isn’t going to ride up my hoo- ha, but I’ve never found a pair of boy shorts that didn’t.
Also, aside from comfort, if I’m wearing skinny jeans, I’ll wear a thong so you can’t see my underwear line. Same goes with a lot of work pants.

And thongs don't ride up on the reverse side? I'm a penis wielding human for reference so I'm genuinely unsure about this. As I mentioned to the other reply here I find underwear with seams at the back do ride up for me so I would have imagined thongs to be the same if not worse.

Thongs do ride up the back, but they are meant to, so they are made thinner for more comfort. Also, the back isn’t as sensitive as the front, so it’s not as uncomfortable to have a thong between your cheeks as it is to have boy shorts between your lips.

If I’m completely honest, my wife found/buys the brand that I wear >.< I’d have to look to even know the brand.
I know that they all have lace for the “straps” and that seems to be what helps, because then they don’t move around, which prevents the rest from moving around, in my experience.

I actually hate boyshorts. They're so irritating! I prefer underwear that is really snug and tight, nothing worse than it moving around or just being generally baggy. Also, thongs (depending on the things itself I guess) can be really comfy. They're not all lacey stringy things, some are just the same as cotton knickers except they don't cover your butt.

I wear thongs because all of my chub goes to my butt so the back of boy shorts ride up like heck! With a thong as long as it's cotton material I can't even feel it! With boy shorts I've got a constant wedgie 😂

Nobody is defending it. In a perfect world, people could wear whatever they like without repercussions of being raped, walk wherever they like without repercussions of being robbed, and say whatever they like without repercussions of being assaulted. This world, unfortunately, does not yet exist. There are pockets in the real world where the real and ideal worlds differ. In this real world, you have higher odds of experiencing harm depending on where you are and who you are with. It doesn't make it right and the criminal very well may get punished... But that won't ever erase whatever trauma you experienced in the process. It's not fair, but to ignore the faults of our current world and expect them to never intersect with your life is just asking for a bad time.

What does that have to do with underwear clearly not having a place in a rape trial? That is what this is about. Who is ignoring that this is a fact in our world? That is literally what this post is about, that it's messed up that this is what the world is like.

What does that have to do with underwear clearly not having a place in a rape trial?

What would have a place in a rape trial? Given a person can revoke consent at any time, no behavior (other than a recording of the entire encounter) proves they did consent. Even if they were seen having a very affectionate date and going into a home together, at any point either person can say no to going any further. So should their having been on an affectionate date be brought up?

Sometimes it is. You speak for all women? My girlfriend wears sweats to be comfortable. And thongs to feel sexy. Sometimes it makes her feel sexy to turn me on. Sometimes it makes me feel hot to turn her on. In healthy relationships people do things for eachother. Stop being so bitter and projecting your own opinions onto "all women" or " all men" generalizations are just as dangerous in any situation.

A person stated a fact completely unrelated to your opinion about rape and its causes. And you are so bitter that you cant even entertain the idea that women do things for men sometimes. Its a fucjing fact. That doesnt mean we condone rape. Or that if a woman is wearing a thong that we think she is asking for it. We didnt say that at all. Listen to us. And NOT yourself for once...

No, I'm referring to the fact that this sub constantly bombarded with men who come here only to "correct" women's viewpoints about things that go on in our lives. Genuine, thoughful posts by men are always welcome.

It's sad you got downvoted for pointing out that yes, sometimes the underwear IS for someone else. Not randoms (generally, but yes, that link exists too) but for a specific someone. Lingerie exists for sex.

So, are you seriously saying that no woman ever has considered what men might think when choosing their outfit?

You're not that important to us.

That's not a very mature thing to say. Even purely biologically speaking both sexes are vital. Moreover, if men are not important to women, why do I hear things like "where can I find a man", "I want a boyfriend" etc all the time?

No, when choosing our clothing and underwear, we are not choosing it based on what random men or HoldThisBeer will think of them. We choose according to our own style and comfort in addition to outside constraints like professional dress codes. We don't dress for men.

Sometimes I dress up because I'm looking to impress a guy (if I'm single) , or if I want my boyfriend feel extra proud to have me beside him. Most of the time, I do it to feel a bit more confident. Many women put on nice matching underwear for no other reason than for themselves - wear it to work, just out of the shower, whenever they feel like it.

So yeah, sometimes women dress up for men. But even then, we're doing it for ourselves, because we want something. We don't dress exclusively for a man's pleasure. But most of the time we want to do it for ourselves. I don't speak for every female, neither does the woman you're talking like an asshole to, but we certainly know more about why women dress up than a douchebag like you does.

I don't know the details of the case, but I imagine he said it was consensual.

Either it was consensual and she wore very sexy underwear and there was other indications of consent alongside this such as test messages and CCTV footage, or he's a pathetic waste of human life and the jury were incompetent. Yeah I do understand she can withdraw consent at any time. She could have done that too. She could have consented and regretted the next day. We'll never know.

Just because it goes to court, doesn't mean the defense is guilty. It is what a solid legal system is based on. Innocent until proven guilty.

The only ones that had the full information were those in the room and the jury.

They hadn't met before, she was a few years younger (can't remember the exact ages but she's a teen, he is a married man), she was walking home from a night out, they had sex in the mud in a lane way and she was a virgin.

These are all the confirmed facts published widely in the Irish media, but as you said there is obviously some evidence that made the jury believe him and not her. Still, the fact her choice of underwear was brought up is just ludicrous. That's the part the sparked the protests. Intelligently, most people against what happened don't address the outcome of the case but purely the use of victims clothing against them.

Well I guess if I didn't want to be convicted for rape I'd probably just not rape somebody but yeah, I guess I wouldn't want my lawyer to do anything to protect me.

Also, most people protesting aren't bringing up the question of whether or not the guy was guilty, they're arguing the fact it was morally wrong to defend an alleged rapist by saying if a woman is wearing a thing she must be looking for sex, given that most women wear things regularly, and typically it's not to encourage sexual encounters.

But you're missing the point. It shouldn't be allowed for the lawyer to do this. Victims, alleged or otherwise, should be protected by the law. Using clothing as a basis for whether a victim wanted sex or not is ludicrous and damaging, particularly underwear considering a rapist can't see my underwear until they've started to attack me. It should be legally inadmissible, which is the point of the protests and outcry in Ireland.

If it was consensual, her choice of underwear is still irrelevant. It's really simple and I don't know how people get so confused. Clothing has no impact what so ever on the guilt or innocence of any party, it does not encourage rape, it does not indicate a victims alleged willingness.

If you were trying to not imply that you were sure doing a hell of a shit job.

That was recent, correct? I think it was a minor and an adult? The argument as I remember (still fucked up and no ok) was that by planning on wearing such undergarments the victim had thought about/was willing for sexual relations.

FTR, that whole thing was fucked up. But the argument was on intent for that specific meeting and not that she was just walking down the street.

Its happened at least twice in recent years in Ireland. The first girl killed herself. Many attribute it to the fact that not only was she raped, she was forced, repeatedly, to hold up the underwear she wore while crying and being questioned simultaneously. As though she needed more stress and injury.

Its happened in recent years in Ireland. The first girl killed herself. Many attribute it to the fact that not only was she raped, she was forced, repeatedly, to hold up the underwear she wore while crying and being questioned simultaneously. As though she needed more stress and injury.

If you are referring to the case in November 2018, that's a slightly different situation though. The reason her underwear was brought up as evidence was because the girl claimed her attacker "ripped off" her underwear. However in court they found that the underwear was not ripped, which cast doubt on her version of events.

The accused was not convicted in the end due to lack of evidence. It was nothing to do with what type of underwear the girl was wearing.

She doesn’t want to be raped. But she definitely puts herself at an added risk to be raped.

Also, jury perceptions of consent work similarly to an individuals perception of consent. I.E. if the information you have leads to reasonable acceptance of sexual behavior than it is consent. A jury may find that a women being naked in a club is reasonably accepting of sexual behavior. This doesn’t mean she is, but rather the line was blurry enough that we can’t assume she didn’t provide consent non verbally to the rapist.

Science and Psychology disagrees with you. It has everything to do with the likelihood of a woman being seen as an object for pleasure and objectification, as shown by Vaes in 2011 and Objectification Theory in 1997.

Further, new studies show that risk of rape dramatically increases with objectivity.

When you try to poke fun at the absolutely obvious ridiculousness of a recent rape case prosecution with a completely relevant analogy on a pro-feminist sub and still have to deal with dismissive justifications.

I don't think her being a virgin is stupid. Realistically, most virgins wouldn't want their first time to be on the mud down a lane way with a stranger. Obviously, some virgin might indeed want that. But being reasonable, most virgins would prefer something more ideal - in terms of the partner, the setting and the general desire of virgins to want to have a nice memory. Again, it's a generalisation, but it is certainly reasonable.

The prosecution didn't say 'she's a virgin, she obviously didn't want sex'. They pointed out the conditions under which she lost her virginity were far, far from what one would expect. Yes, it's not solid evidence, but it is a very reasonable point to make. So it's completely understandable why the prosecution would assert that their client wasn't looking for sex down a muddy lane way for her first time.

Alright, I know this is gonna sound terrible, but lets go into basic (ELI5) crimnology. Any crime that occurs has 3 factors that determine its likelihood to occur, (1) a worthwhile target (umm the victim) (2) with a lack of physical security (lack of friends, drunk inattentive friends, drunk themselves, alone, whatever you want to call it.) and (3) a willing participant ( the perpetrator). Things like the consequences, disposition, and lack of or abundance of needed or desirable resources affect a perps willingness to commit a crime, but will never reduce a crime to 0. In other words (the terrible truth), you can wear the sexiest garments available to you or behave in a flirtatious manner and you will appear to be a more worthwhile target, you can go out drinking alone at a club WITH a potential perp and get completely shithoused, and its still not your fault you got raped and its still the rapist that needs to be punished. Its also probably not very smart. You can change this example for any crime with a victim and the name of the various variables change, but the conclusion remains the same. You post up gaurds at a bank, keep money locked in timelock safes, and people still rob banks. That doesnt mean you shouldnt have gaurds at a bank. You lock your house, you are poor and have nothing of value, and you still get robbed for the little you do have. (then again there are more poor in cities, and you will tend to live in a poorer neighborhood which lacks resources and thus more willing participants will exist.) In conclusion, yes there are variables that you can control that limit the likelihood for bad things to happen, but bad things will still happen and the lack of or abundance of those controls should not be a legal defense, but lawyers know dumb people sit on juries and there tends to be a lack of physical evidence in these cases so you will keep seeing this argument.

Exactly, I'm all for innocent until proven guilty. But blaming clothing is "innocent" when proven guilty. Fuck. That. This ain't the 1800's where you can class showing yer ankle as consent. Bullshit. Clothing should barley ever come up in trial. Deffinitly never a rape trial.

Um, i’m having a hard time of finding evidence this happens a lot, in the U.S the only evidence i found a legal counsel asking a woman what she was wearing in a single case covered by huff po, https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5797a86be4b0d3568f84b427. This article seems like an outlier case and the lawyer was condemned for his actions. For the UK, i onyl found one case of a single MP saying that they COULD be asked questions similar to this. Not a lot of solid evidence of this occurring regularly or even occasionally. I’m by no means trying to justify rape or offend any victims of sexual assault, however, this post is seeming like a strawman argument to me.

Okay, that’s one case out of a barrel of tens of thousands a year, that sparked massive protest. What’s the problem? This behavior clearly isn’t normal based on the violent response mentioned in your source. Yeah, it happened, and it was met with protest and anger immediately, your post is misleading either intentionally or unintentionally.

Because the post implies that if you are sexually assaulted, you either will or most likely will get asked about what you are wearing and be humiliated like in this case. This is not close to the truth.

It doesn't imply that at all. It clearly says that it's just a thought I had relating to that case in particular. In no way does it imply the likelihood of that scenario happening. I think you're just arguing for the sake of it. If you're OK with the protests that took place based on this case what is your issue with the single thought of a single person in relation to it? The post is a completely relevant analogy of the details of that particular case. It's just a thought, it says it right there in the post. Your judgement of the implied meaning of the post is wrong, I would know, I wrote it.

Well if the previous times he had raped/sexual assaulted people he had gone commando and did not at other times it would suggest he may well have had that mindset. It doesn't prove the actual incident and what occurred but if the prosecution is based on witness testimony alone and so mindset etc are key for the veracity of the witness testimony then him wearing (or in this case not wearing) clothing that he only did so to commit this crime it becomes relevant.

Another example, if a group of guys only wear balaclavas when they go out and rob banks but do not at other times if they are caught outside a bank with balaclavas it would suggest their motivation is not to do good.

None of this should or would be conclusive but dealing with little to no physical evidence it becomes more relevant when creating a believable narrative as unpleasant as that might be.

Within the direct circumstance if a woman puts on particularly alluring lingerie she would not normally wear on dates but does when wanting to engage in sex after, it is establishing a pattern for motivation coming into the evening. Therefore if she then claims she had no intent to have sex that evening that would go against that narrative. That wouldn't establish consent of course or what happened later but it would suggest concerns around the woman's veracity when the prosecution case is built on their witness's veracity. If there is no pattern to the clothing she wears then this is irrelevant as is the case if the argument was not that she never wanted sex but that the lack/withdrawal of consent was later etc. So it is relevant but only under specific parameters and patterns.

This same narrative questioning should be used on the defendant as well, what actions did they take outside the norm etc that might suggest malice in their intentions. Did they break a pattern etc. What things did they say that don't gel with what physical evidence there is etc.

Within the direct circumstance if a woman puts on particularly alluring lingerie she would not normally wear on dates but does when wanting to engage in sex after, it is establishing a pattern for motivation coming into the evening. Therefore if she then claims she had no intent to have sex that evening that would go against that narrative. That wouldn't establish consent of course or what happened later but it would suggest concerns around the woman's veracity when the prosecution case is built on their witness's veracity. If there is no pattern to the clothing she wears then this is irrelevant as is the case if the argument was not that she never wanted sex but that the lack/withdrawal of consent was later etc. So it is relevant but only under very specific parameters and patterns.

Well if the previous times he had raped people he had gone commando and did not at other times it would suggest he may well have had that mindset. It doesn't prove the actual incident and what occurred but if the prosecution is based on witness testimony alone and so mindset etc are key for the veracity of the witness testimony then him wearing (or in this case not wearing) clothing that he only did so to commit this crime it becomes relevant.

Within this circumstance if a woman puts on particularly alluring lingerie she would not normally wear on dates but does when wanting to engage in sex after it is establishing a pattern for motivation coming into the evening. Therefore if she then claims she had no intent to have sex that evening that would go against that narrative. That wouldn't establish consent of course or what happened later but it would suggest concerns around the woman's veracity when the prosecution case is built on their witnesses veracity.

This same narrative questioning should be used on the defendant as well, what actions did they take outside the norm etc that might suggest malice in their intentions. What things did they say that don't gel with what physical evidence there is etc.

Well, given that she's a virgin that owns and wears thongs, really that shows that every single time she ever wore a thing before then she did so without having sex. So therefore she obviously wasn't looking for sex. Sweet logic bro.

Your comparison to robbing a bank is laughable, I can't can't tell if your whole comment is elaborate sarcasm or not.

I wasn't linking it directly to the story in Ireland only the example given in the title plus the arguments against clothing having relevance in court cases. Given I didn't mention Ireland or thongs I am not certain whether you struggle with reading comprehension or not...

If you really can't understand how wearing certain clothing regularly in certain situations and therefore creating patterns of behaviour has relevance as an analogy well unfortunately I really can't help you,

Would it shock you to learn I think the lawyer in Ireland went too far and maybe some discrecion on the part of the judge would have been relevant. What I am not for however is a wholesale change in what evidence is and isn't allowed off of one overzealous lawyer.

You posted an analogy in direct response to another analogy. Given that the context of this entire post is the use of a thong as evidence against an alleged rape victim, if you fail to see why I brought up those facts the issue here really isn't my comprehension skills.

Youre missing the point. There have been multiple protest across Ireland due to the fact underwear should never be admissible as evidence against an alleged rape victim.

This isn't one overzealous lawyer. A similar case happened a few years ago where the girl in question was repeatedly forced to hold her thing up in court, while crying, and forced to answer questions while doing so. Ultimately the girl killed herself, and while this obviously cannot be solely attributed to her breakdown on the stand due to her treatment in court, it was believed that something like that wouldn't happen again and should have been protected in law. It wasn't, we're disgusted, and moronic comparisons to balaclavas doesn't suddenly make it okay.

Nobody would care. Trust me, if a man gets falsely convicted for rape for this reason it wouldn't be anywhere on the news because the media does not care about men's problems anywhere near as much as women's.

I get what you're trying to do here, but flipping the defendant/accused kind of screws this comparison up.

Assumedly, this theoretical case is happening because someone is accused of raping someone. It is absolutely worth mentioning he dressed in a fashion more conducive to committing a crime. It speaks to pre-meditation; it's similar to bringing tools/weapons. It is incriminating.

It's quite a different scenario when we are referring to a rape victim. I am not saying going commando means "rape me." That is absolutely fucked up logic. I just don't think your thought experiment holds any water.

Assumedly, this case is happening because someone (the defendant) is accused of raping someone. It is absolutely worth mentioning he or she dressed in a fashion more conducive to committing a crime. It speaks to pre-meditation; it's similar to bringing tools/weapons. It is incriminating.

My point is that it *would* be brought up if the roles were reversed and that OP's entire position is a strawman argument. OP has succeeded at provoking thought, but their argument is a nonstarter.

The case OP has linked is nothing new in the legal field, there are tonnes of fucked cases like this, ("she should have closed her legs", "he/she's a prostitute, how can you rape them? That's their job", "he/she communicated with them after the rape", "why didn't they scream for help?" "They are married, you can't rape your wife/husband", "He was hard, obviously he wanted it") it's a really terrible state of things, and it appalls me that people have no concept of consent. Good on the OP for bringing attention to it, but just because I agree with someone doesn't mean I won't be critical of their arguments. I WANT the OP's argument to be better, more tenable.

In a perfect world, people could wear whatever they like without repercussions of being raped, walk wherever they like without repercussions of being robbed, and say whatever they like without repercussions of being assaulted. This world, unfortunately, does not yet exist. There are pockets in the real world where the real and ideal worlds differ. In this real world, you have higher odds of experiencing harm depending on where you are and who you are with. It doesn't make it right and the criminal very well may get punished... But that won't ever erase whatever trauma you experienced in the process. It's not fair, but to ignore the faults of our current world and expect them to never intersect with your life is just asking for a bad time.

Unfortunately that’s not true in the US. The prosecution must argue the evidence to prove their case. They can’t just make shit up because it helps them. The defense however can basically say anything, as long as it isn’t patently false, to inject reasonable doubt into a jury. That’s why you see bullshit like “her short skirt and high heels means she was asking for it”.

That's not true. A lawyers job is to say my defendent didn't commit the crime because here's his alibi. A lawyers job is not to say my defendent committed the crime but it doesn't count because she was a slut.

If they were defending a murder case, should the murderer go free because the their lawyer said the victim clearly asked to be killed by standing in the way of the bullet?

I was making a broader point - a lawyer can argue more than just an alibi defense. In some cases, even when someone is killed, the circumstances change it from murder to negligent manslaughter - or it can absolve the defendant entirely.

Funny point, but the lawyer in the murder case would be obligated to their client to try to paint a picture where the bullet wasn't meant to hit the target, aiming for a lesser sentence. We have an adversarial legal system, both sides try to present their evidence to create or alleviate doubt in the jurors. The lawyer wouldn't be doing his job if he didnt try to get the best result for his client.

So the murderer can claim he didn't commit malicious murder by saying it was an accident? That he pointed the gun at the victims and pulled the trigger, but it doesn't count because he meant to do something else?

And in this case the lawyer should have said that he didn't mean to rape her the entire time he was forcing her clothes off and forcing himself inside her? Yea that'll hold up.

I must have missed the point because a few google searches for cases where the defense argued that a lack of panties on the victims part constituted consent. I’d love to study the cases where that argument was attempted. I can’t imagine any of those arguments worked. There was a case very recently in the state of Kansas in which an adult male had sex with a 15 year old female and argued that since state law says that life begins at fertilization, his victim was really 16 which would make her legal. The judge in that case wasted no time shutting him down.

I’ve never seen anyone claim anything like that in court. If you’re referring to the Irish case where her underwear was brought up nobody said it was proof that she wanted to have sex. You can’t prove consent, unless you have witnesses, a recording or sign a waiver before sex, and you can’t prove that there wasn’t consent.

It’s word against word, so what the prosecution and defends do is paint pictures around the evidence to make their story more believable.

Is someone wearing a thong more interested in sex than someone in granny panties? Doesn’t have to be. Is it more likely that they are? My instincts tell me yes, which is why it was brought up, to help paint his clients story as more believable.

Would anyone have been upset of the prosecution argued that since she was wearing sweats and a dirty bra she probably wasn’t looking to hook up? I doubt it. Stop making a big deal about non issues and taking attention from the real problems.

In some cases sure. In others no. I bet if we went out and looked at everybody having sex with someone for the first time tonight most of them would be wearing nice underwear, both genders, and not some old ugly ones.

But it’s not about that, it’s about wether or not it paints that picture, and for most people it does. Does me chasing after someone looking angry just before they die prove murder? Does someone seeing me in all plastic clothes outside the victims clothes in any way prove murder? No but it helps paint the story. Same thing here. You can’t prove consent so both sides have to use anything they can to help make their side more believable, that’s how the justice system works.

Her underwear has nothing to do with what happened, that's the point. Even if she plans on having sex that night, doesn't mean she consented when the time came.
I'll agree it's hard to prove what actually happened as it's his word against hers but bringing up what she was wearing is absolutely ridiculous.

No more ridiculous than bringing up that she was handcuffed or what a killer was seen wearing just before a murder. A trial is all about making a judge or jury believe your side of a story, and it may help the defence with their side. Is that wrong? Maybe. But then we’re talking about changing society on a base level not the justice system.

If you can’t bring up this, what’s to stop other equally unrelated things like what a killer was wearing or that the victim was tied up to be tossed out too?

It does. I agree. And that’s a good decision to have. But wether it should be allowed to be brought up and wether it’s ridiculous that it is considered abnd might even help are two completely different things, sonething a lot of people here seem to be missing.

I guess so. I just feel bad for anyone thinking that what you're wearing has an bearing to being raped.
I do think that cases where it's his word against hers to be tricky especially when alcohol is involved and no witnesses. Shitty situation if it happened to the victim and shitty situation if the person accused is innocent.

I agree. And I don’t think it does tbh. That exhibit, can’t remember the name, of what women wear when assaulted proved that. It’s shitty that it might help, I’m not even sure it would. But that’s the problem with these crimes, almost never any witnesses or anything like that and all around just shitty.

But that doesn’t mean we should limit what can and can’t be brought up in court.

Jesus Christ at least read my comment first. I already said it doesn’t. But you can’t prove consent or lack thereof. It’s impossible.

What I’m wearing has nothing to do with me committing murder. You have no idea why men wear what we do.

So I guess you’re against prosecution being allowed to bring up the fact that the defendant was seen standing around in a Dexter get up? I mean clothes have nothing to do with if you commit murder.

It helps paint a story. If someone is wearing sexy clothes and flirting she is more likely to be into it, at least that’s what most of our society believes. Does it prove consent? Of course not. As you say it has nothing to do with consent. But neither does anything the prosecution bring up. Unless you have witnesses or a recording the only thing related to consent in a trial would be the victims word against the accused. Everything else is just trying to paint a picture.

Bruises on the victims neck doesn’t prove no consent. Maybe she likes it rough. But it can help paint a picture of the night favouring the victims story. But I guess we shouldn’t allow that either then.

It. Does. Not. Matter. That’s not my point. It’s up to the judge or jury to decide wether or not that helps paint the story the defence is painting or not. If people wear it without the intent to have sex or with the intent to have sex is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it can help paint that picture in our current society, and ofc the defence should be allowed to.

Just as the prosecution could bring up bruises, him tying her up or anything like that that in no way proves lack of consent to paint a different picture.

If you don’t want to allow it because it doesn’t prove or disprove consent you’re basically saying no evidence expect witness statements should be admissible meaning all rapists would go free. You can’t cherry pick what can and can not be allowed as evidence if you want a proper justice system. The prosecution brought them into evidence as far as I understand, then the defence is abd has to be allowed to discuss said evidence.

Plus it was even in his closing statement where they’re allowed to paint more of a picture.

Jesus Christ, read back his comments slowly and maybe it will penetrate your thick skull then. He is not projecting his image on when women are consenting and when they are not, he is explaining the societal connection most people have between wearing nice underwear and sex/intimacy.

Furthermore explaining how a rape case is played by both parties because as he said proving or disproving consent is impossible. This means both parties need to prove intent in other ways and sadly that includes judging what women were wearing for most defending parties. It's sad but it is the way most people work as the cognitive connection between sexy underwear and sex itself is deeply rooted in most people's brain and it is thus a viable way to convince a jury.

If you were to deny that as a piece of evidence then most if not all evidence you could bring as the accuser would also be voided on the same grounds of "you don't know why (person) has (piece of evidence)" and the accused rapist would be released again almost every time.

Not at all. In my experience someone who wants to have sex fir the first time, or the first times, makes sure to wear nice underwear. I know I do. Does that mean everybody dies? Of course not. Does that mean we only wear nice underwear then? Of course not.

If you want to change society so that it’s useless to bring up what underwear someone is wearing in a trial go for it. It sound great. But if you want to limit what can be brought up in a trial as a defence because you don’t like it then no. No no no.

With all due respect, you're not listening. They've acknowledged your perspective, provided a valid counterpoint, and you've ignored it.

​

To accuse someone of "not getting it" when you're clearly not listening to a thing they're saying is both rude, and hypocritical. It does nothing to strengthen your argument, and simply encourages contempt.

Imagine being able to say you were too drunk and didn't know what you were doing or what was happening cause you were intoxicated and so your actions are tossed out and you're the victim cause you were too drunk. Oh that claim works but only women are able to be too intoxicated to be able to control their actions. Men cant drink too much and always need to be held responsible for their actions unlike women.